You might have noticed that more and more people can'r find work, there are more and more food shorteges in certain parts of the world, unsufficient resources for everybody i.e. water, electricity, and so on. The are many problems on a material plan, but we often forget what happengs on a moral level. From the moment i began existing as a conscient beying i have been feeling that life isn't valued enough or at all in our times and societies.
there's also the effect we have on the planet im not talking about our inpact on ecology (there is that too!!) i'm pointing out that we have made many spicies exting or on the verge of extinction, not to mention the enormous amount of resources we deploy often in detriment of other living creatures and other humans.
so the problems are here what are the solutions? is reducing our numbers is a solution?
We'll move out into space before killing off the weak.
If losing all of the bad guys, it would be a nice community.
If losing all of the good guys, really, it's like losing 3/4 of the Earth's population.
There are just as many criminals as there are Average people. Also I don't believe there are bad people, just good people forced to do acts deemed negative to society in order to live. (Serial Killers usually have a mental problem) Bad Guys and Good Guys? Are you a child?
well, my idea would be to control the birth or slow down the birth rate.
all these ideas of killing people are starting to sound like Nazi Germany. if we follow through with this killing idea, then who is it ok to kill or not ok?
If they're not suicidal, there must be a reason for why they want to survive, no?
Thus, it is highly immoral to "euthanize" them.
Also, for all you eugeneticists, Social Darwinism is a much better choice, as it is more objective.
The planet can handle 5 billion people. It can't handle 7 billion.
Populations are self-stabilizing. My first objection is that, assuming the planet can only handle 5 billion people, then it will decrease whether or not you create such a law.
I say option two, while more cold blooded and "cruel" is the better of the two options.
If this is truly your opinion, then Social Darwinism is MUCH better, because it is more objective in measurement of "unfit"-ness.
Would it not also be more ethical to get rid of the infirm elderly who are nearing their twilight years and spend ever waking moment sitting in a rest home that they will never leave unless it is in a body bag or in the back of an ambulance?
Your entire post, Valkery, takes the fallacious assumption that people who do not produce are a burden on the producers. Not so in a Social Darwinist Free Market! Social Darwinism is simply a better choice than excessive and what you call "heartless" legislation.
Populations are self-stabilizing. My first objection is that, assuming the planet can only handle 5 billion people, then it will decrease whether or not you create such a law.
Exactly, and while people ***** and moan for the poor in Africa, thousands more will starve to death. The entire continent of Africa is underfed and over populated and while you assume that the problem will "fix itself" millions will starve while people like you, who are to weak in spirit, sit and banter about whether or not action should be taken, and if so in what form.
I think that the answer is simple. Get rid of the starving, acctually starving, not simply impovershed, and then try to rebuld the economy with many less people. Of course, you would have to take out the standing governments as they are right now, and instate a peoples court, where the people decide who becomes the leader, not the other way around.
If you haven't please post a link on social darwinism. I would like it if I could view it at my leisure, rather than me having to go look it up, since I only took time to write this post while writing an essay.
No ad hominem attacks please... I am stating an idea - no reason to attack me personally.
I think that the answer is simple. Get rid of the starving, acctually starving, not simply impovershed, and then try to rebuld the economy with many less people
The answer is not as simple as you think - why should the economy be rebuilt easier with less people? Because of division of labor, isn't it better to have more people in an economy? Also, these people are starving because of AIDS, environmental things like drought, perhaps, and the lack of a free market.
If you haven't please post a link on social darwinism. I would like it if I could view it at my leisure, rather than me having to go look it up, since I only took time to write this post while writing an essay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism In particular I am referring to free-market Social Darwinism. Why is this a better option? In Social Darwinism, you are forced to produce more than you consume. Those unable to produce are "selected out," while those who are productive survive, which benefits all the survivors who do not have to support the unproductive. It would be hypocritical for any of you to attack these ideas but not attack valkery's, because he advocates the same thing, but in his case, it more readily falls under the label of "genocide," because the survival depends on those in power, rather than nature - a much more objective source, and one that is more accurate.
Your entire post, Valkery, takes the fallacious assumption that people who do not produce are a burden on the producers. Not so in a Social Darwinist Free Market! Social Darwinism is simply a better choice than excessive and what you call "heartless" legislation.
the second - you assume that starving people is an absolute negative. Now - this sounds very reasonable, but you then go on to assume the only way to solve this is through killing of them.
If you remember somethings from your history books, here is a fact. During the 1st World War women had to work in order to support their countries, wich made them independant(and even more after the 2nd World War), wich in its turn slowed brith rate in european countries, and brought equality between men and women. I guess the same principles could be used for underdevelopped countries, but the problem is, in such a solution, who will open a job market so big? especialy after the economic crisis that made many people in developped world jobless. In my opinion, our Govr. are afraid of change thus they put in place all kinds of "healing" institutions to keep everyting "OK" (welfare), in order to show that something is being done. instead of re-adjusting the society to meet the requierments of it's time. I believe that everything is linked in our planet,(dissatisfaction of population hurts the economy, bad realtion with other govr. brings war). By this logic, i can affirm, if something goes wrong in one branche or country, the problems spread, like viruses, to other countries, simply look at the middle-east.
The sad truth is yes, yes it will. Now even if it did, should we? There are other ways, (less effective, true, but without casualties) to reduce our problems.
yes lets start by killing obama
I did not know redneck conservatives hated Obama that much.
ok but i dont think we should reduce humans. that would be like hitler and how will we chose who gose, all the jews???(agin hittler)no it would ether be geniside or mass killing witch we know from history are both bad things
